Carl-Richard

Alden's number is the constant you need to calculate the ratio of island-bound socioeconomic privilege and the weight of deez nuts.

You're conflating retroactive responsibility (e.g. liability) with proactive responsibility (taking action). The former is often a legal issue while the latter is mainly a moral issue. You don't necessarily go to jail for failing to take action and become a value-contributing citizen, especially if you're privileged (e.g. you're leeching off inherited wealth). On the other hand, if your environment is shit, the probability of it turning into a legal matter is much higher. However, this doesn't mean underprivileged people don't have liability.

He got debunked by his own comment section lulz

Why you trolling a perfectly good conversation?

Stop ?

The reason personal responsibility is mentioned less is because it's obvious grade school level stuff that nobody denies the importance of, meanwhile the entire right-wing ideology is about actively denying the importance of structural change, so of course that is where you'll see the pushback. If you were to actually educate yourself on the meaning of empowerment as a social intervention, you'll see that it has both systemic and individualistic aspects to it. It's also the case that structures provide a base for individuals to exercise their power in the first place. You can't build stable family dynamics on a pool of lava. You need to start on a firm ground. This is just a rehash of the bootstrap meme.

You're going way beyond that. You're making claims like "the individual is the MOST important factor." Leftists are not making such claims, and they're not denying the importance of personal responsibility either. Ask a community psychologist (they're all leftists btw) what is more important for the health of society: collective or individual action? He/she would answer that it's a malformed question. They're interdependent. Like Rillies said, this is exactly what the model describes. To paraphrase Fritjof Capra: "there are no things, only relationships."

Place a group of individuals in a pool of lava and you'll see how the equation truly works. I recommend getting familiar with the theory behind what we're talking about. Urie Bronfenbrenner's Ecological systems theory is a good start: https://iteducationlearning.com/bronfenbrenner-theory/ Your analysis is biased towards the center.

This is something I realized after years of weight training. I get so much more out of each workout if I give everything I've got each set and focus on big compound movements rather than the bodybuilding dogma of "slow, controlled contraction" and isolation exercises (although that has its place). The rush of energy in the moment and the afterglow of pleasant body/brain chemistry throughout the day is what makes me come back every time.

I would assume you did that as a privileged person from a stable neighborhood/family. We'll have to fix the neighborhoods and wait and see. Again, start on-the-ground.

I'm going to assume that this is not a metatheoretical observation of human nature, but rather of "those people". I'm going to argue for the former: that when it comes down to the fundamentals of sensemaking, it doesn't help to point the finger. What you're reacting to is not the naive adherence to authority. It's rather the ramifications of collective responsibility. This can be demonstrated very simply: What do you mean by "studying the evidence with an independent mind"? You mean reading news outlets? Academic papers? Scientific theory? Are these not authorities? Are you the sole source of that information? From whom did you learn how to interpret that information? The truth is that no one is independent, neither epistemologically nor socially. That is the psychosis of radical individualism. One is always reliant on authority, and this doesn't suddenly change just because you watch one youtube channel over another. What you're really opposed to is recognizing your duty as a member of a society; to see how your individuality is intrinsically tied to the collective, how absolute freedom is not a given, how spreading disease is not a point of pride, and how threatening people's right to survive is not an exercise of individuality. If society is dying, you're dying. No society, no individuality. Is this me arguing against independent thinking as an ideal? Nope. I'm just saying that in practice, it's not something as straightforward as making a choice. If people could just "reclaim their minds" and instantly become objective, independent, sober dispellers of untruth, would we have any disagreements in the world? Polarization is a fact of life. The ability to worry about weighing petty issues like polarization over human life is a good showcase of the levels of social privilege that is granted by a stable collective.

This is true until you reach levels of mass that impedes your breathing and literally weighs you down. However, that is mostly the case for "pharmacologically enhanced individuals" (in the words of death star delts Derek) or the combination of a slightly higher than optimal fat percentage. Exhibit A: 196kg at 190 cm (432.1 lbs at 6'3").

Is this really what is happening? Where are the well-funded schools and stable neighborhoods that don't take advantage of them? You're getting lost in hypotheticals here. We're talking about on-the-ground issues.

@BadHippie If you've followed the threads closely like I have, you would know what I'm referring to. It's mainly a point about the format in which points are presented, not the ideology behind them.

Plato and Aristotle were also ingenious innovators for their time period. That doesn't mean their theories are cutting edge today.

Do you have a specific example of what you would like me to say in this case?

To your question: I didn't watch the video. From the little I've heard from him, Aubrey Marcus seems like a reasonable guy, but let's not forget that a lot of reasonable people have gotten lost in the skeptic rabbit hole. One example is Bret Weinstein. That is not to say that these guys should be burned at the stake. It's more subtle than that.

Haha thank you! ? I can relate to this very much as I used to have anxiety around people just like that myself, but after my meditation experiences, that anxiety is no longer there. It's kinda like you're saying that people are like rocks sometimes

I think this adds evidence to my theory that meditation works (at least partially) through a mechanism of memory reconsolidation, which is how therapies like medicinal PTSD therapy and systematic desensitization therapy for anxiety seem to work, how sleep reduces stress etc. In other words, thoughts are recontextualized in a calm context, which creates a lasting impact and fuels therapeutic progression.

Haha I was about to deploy the broken clock meme again but I figured that would be too accommodating. Again, the trap here is to get stuck on low resolution value judgements like "good" vs. "bad". The overarching point is that society, like technology, is always evolving. Technology is an external expression of internal ingenuity, and they build on top of each other: ingenuity creates technology, and technology inspires more ingenuity. Combine this with the fact that knowledge is passed down through generations and you have the dialectical movements of society. We're evolving towards more complexity and intelligence. This also creates new challenges, and that requires more complex and intelligent solutions. As challenges are overcome, we cultivate collective resilience. You can call that strength. As society evolves, it cycles between individualist and collectivist stages. The individualist stages like to look at the collectivist ones (especially the higher, more inclusive and compassionate ones) and call them weak, and the collectivist ones like to look down on them and call them stupid, because that is what absolutists do. It's also easy to get carried away with everyday speech and concede to using these absolutist terms while also recognizing that the accurate terms indeed are "complex" vs. "simple" and "individual" vs. "group." That is just the nature of language and communication (which are simply social means to social ends; social pragmatism).

You're about all about union and coming together while you spit in the face of collective responsibility . Here I think the poorly named Obama-Trudeau effect actually applies:

Only if you're a Hegelian @Space Lizard Btw, cycles do not contradict progress. That is why we have spiral models (SD, Integral Theory, Cook-Greuter, MHC etc.). These models actually describe the cycles that the right-wingers are talking about, only they don't use the same absolutistic "good/bad, strong/weak" caveman language.

I mean the internet as we know it today (World Wide Web), invented by boomer Tim Berners-Lee in 1989.

Without baby boomers, you wouldn't have the internet. Technology puts a lever on intelligence and power. Who is the stronger man: the man with or without internet?

Cycles are everywhere, but when right-wingers roll up on their tricycles and claim that it supports their worldview, that is when we put a foot on the brakes. We can't not let shit like this go without criticism: Besides, Ibn Khaldun lived in the 14th century. Update your models.